Toronto Deserves Better Transit Service Now! Part 1: Evolution of Service from 2006 to 2014 (Updated)

Updated March 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm: A section has been added with a chart tracking the evolution of budgeted hours of service from 2006 to 2014 showing the effect of revisions, especially those occasioned by the Ford-Stintz cutbacks, and the recent growth of service thanks to carry-overs of “surpluses” in subsidy levels.

Originally published on March 9, 2014 at 8:00 am.

In the coming municipal election campaign, there will be claims and counterclaims about transit service – how much do we have, did it get better or worse, who should be praised or blamed for the changes.

This article reviews the quantity of service offered on surface routes measured by the number of vehicles on the road during various periods. The data shown are, with one exception, for January in each year to give comparable operating and demand conditions for scheduling purposes. (The exception is for 2008 where I only have the February information in my archives. Typically there are few changes between the January and February levels of service.)

Each set of charts linked here shows the weekday, Saturday and Sunday level of service, using number of scheduled vehicles, for each of the five periods in the TTC’s summaries. The data are presented in two ways:

Numbers of vehicles

Ratio of each year’s vehicles to the 2006 values

Ridership Growth

Over the period from 2006 to 2014, ridership will have grown by over 20%. It is impossible to assign this growth to specific periods of the day or modes, although an obvious issue is that riding cannot grow where there is no capacity. Increases in the number of buses or streetcars in service should be seen in the context of that growth.

Two construction projects affect the number of streetcars in service. From 2006-2008, the St. Clair project was in various stages of completion and only part of the line operated with streetcars. For 2013-2014, the Queens Quay reconstruction reduces the number of streetcars on 510 Spadina and eliminates streetcar service on 509 Harbourfront. Although these lines were out of service, the TTC redeployed the spare cars to other routes.

Growth in peak streetcar service has been limited for decades by the size of the fleet. When the Spadina route opened in 1997, this soaked up the then-remaining “spare” cars (a situation which itself was created by the riding losses of the early 1990s). Only small scale service improvements have been possible ever since.

One noteworthy point about the chart of weekday service is the gradual catch-up of PM peak scheduled vehicles with the AM peak. By contrast, the ratio of current weekday service to 2006 is lowest for the AM peak reflecting the lack of spare vehicles.

The onset and subsequent loss of the RGS service standards is evident first in the growth of service before 2010, and the drop after 2012. Some (but not all) of this was recovered with service improvements in 2013 (reflected in 2014 values).

During the period from 2006-2014, two principal changes in the bus fleet were:

The elimination of most of the high-floor buses.

The introduction of hybrid buses.

The peak capacity of high-floor buses is about 10% greater than their low-floor replacements, and in January 2006 high-floors represented about 60% of the fleet. As the fleet mix changed to mainly low-floor buses, the effective capacity of the fleet fell and is now about 95% of its value in 2006.

Roughly 5% of the increase in peak bus requirements is due to reduced capacity of each vehicle. To put it another way, operating 1,000 peak buses with the 2014 fleet is roughly equivalent to operating 950 buses in 2006. Buses added to compensate for this are not a service increase, but the effect of the change in fleet composition.

Another factor likely at play is the proportion of the fleet that is hybrid, a bus type known to be less reliable. This may increase spare requirements and therefore reduce the number of vehicles actually available for service. There were no hybrids in January 2006, but by January 2010, 39% of the fleet was hybrid.

For the bus fleet, the effect of RGS and the subsequent cutbacks is particularly evident with the quick rise in 2009 of the ratio to 2006 service for weekday late evenings. The 2012 value drops (representing the effect of cuts in 2011, but then climbs back again in 2013 and 2014. This represents more vehicles running on routes that remained in service, not a restitution of periods cut from other routes.

Note that number of buses during all other periods changes little from 2009 to 2012 reflecting the lack of funding. What new service was operated on many routes came from reallocating buses and operators from other lines. Meanwhile, with the retirement of high floor buses, the capacity of the fleet that was actually operating was dropping, and so a flat “number of buses” actually represents a cut in the capacity of service.

On weekends, the effect of the RGS standards is evident in the jump between 2008 and 2009, but by 2012 values drop back, especially for late evenings.

Budgeted Service Hours (Added March 10, 2014)

The evolution of service system wide can be seen in the budgeted service hours.

This chart shows the number of hours budgeted for regular service (excluding supplementary construction services) during five periods of the year. Multiple versions of the budget are shown for some years reflecting in-year modifications.

The ramp up of service for the Ridership Growth Strategy and growth overall starts in 2007 with a spike in the revised 2008 budget for growth late in the year. 2009 has three budgets, and the cutbacks between the initial and final versions reflect retrenchment by the City due to the 2008 financial crisis. However, even the final 2009 numbers are higher than 2008’s.

The original 2010 budget included service increases, but these were rolled back by the Ford-Stintz cuts so that by November 2010, the amount of service operated was back to the level of November 2008. Further cuts are evident in 2011 with an initial planned increase considerably scaled back. The initial version of the 2012 budget was even lower than 2011, but strong ridership and fare revenue allowed/forced improvements late in the year.

2013 and 2014 show increases in budgeted service thanks to the carry-over of budgeted subsidies at previous year levels or better.

Politics and The Budget

From a political and budgetary point of view, there are some important landmarks:

2006: Start of David Miller’s second term of office. During this term, the Ridership Growth Strategy (RGS) was implemented to improve service quality both by reducing acceptable loads on vehicles (service standards) and by changing all routes to operate during all service periods when the subway was open.

2010: Start of Rob Ford’s term of office. Although service improvements were originally planned for 2010, these were put on hold when it became clear that an administration bent on cutting costs would come to power. Also stopped during this period was the expansion of the bus fleet and the construction of new garage space.

2011: The TTC’s budgeted operating subsidy was flatlined at $429m. Service changes were implemented in mid-2011 to drop “poor performers”, periods of service that carried few passengers. This undid part of the RGS improvements.

2012: The TTC’s subsidy was reduced to $411m. Service changes were implemented in mid-2012 to reduce loading standards so that more riders were needed before a service would be considered “full” and deserving of improvement. This undid the remainder of the Ridership Growth Strategy.

2013: The TTC’s subsidy was again flat lined at $411m. However, in 2012, due to strong ridership and lower than budgeted costs, the TTC ran a “surplus” relative to budget. Therefore, on an actual dollars spent basis, the TTC actually received a larger subsidy in 2013 than in 2012. This allowed some service improvements that would not have otherwise been possible.

2014: The TTC’s subsidy was increased to $428m. This increase, combined with a 2013 “surplus” brought the TTC a higher 2014 budgeted subsidy than actual spending in 2013. This provides some headroom for service growth, but little is planned until fall 2014.

Looking at the actual number of buses in service, even with an adjustment for the transition to lower-capacity low-floor vehicles, there has been some improvement since 2011. However, this was possible only because the City chose to compare budget-to-budget for 2013 and 2014, rather than looking at actual revenues and spending. During the 2013 budget discussions, I remember comments, privately, that boiled down to “don’t tell the Mayor” lest Rob Ford discover that the TTC was getting a bigger increase on an actual-to-actual basis than appeared in the budget papers. Toronto was lucky that diesel fuel prices were well below projected values, and that other net savings and revenues produced those “surpluses”.

From 2006 to 2014 (projected) ridership on the system went up by over 20%. Although there is no breakdown of how this is distributed by mode or time period, that scale of increase makes recent service improvements, such as they are, pale by comparison. The number of buses in service on weekdays has barely grown to match this rate, and the system has actually lost capacity when the effect of low-floor buses is included.

Without those budget surpluses and the “stealth” increases in as spent subsidies they allowed, transit service today would be even worse, compared even with pre-RGS 2006 than it actually is. At no point during budget debates did the Commission trumpet how it would improve service beyond the bare necessities, and nobody can take credit for recent increases that barely keep pace with ridership growth.

What Can We Do Now?

This is not a time for hand-wringing about what cannot be done, but for clear-eyed reviews of the resources we have and might get in the near future. Often we hear about “making do with less”, but rarely about “doing more”.

In part 2, I will examine the current state of the TTC’s fleet and plans, and will comment on what can be done to improve service now rather than two or three years in the future.

20 thoughts on “Toronto Deserves Better Transit Service Now! Part 1: Evolution of Service from 2006 to 2014 (Updated)”

Is the TTC able to put more buses into service during theAM Peak than at present? (Assuming same maintenance practices, etc.). Or to put it another way: does any increases in AM peak service levels require additional vehicles to be purchased?

Steve: Current AM Peak buses: 1,546 Fleet: 1,848 Spare Factor: 19.5%. (This does not include the artics which were reported as “zero” in the January schedule summary although Bathurst is about to convert from 12m to 18m bus operation.) Spares consist broadly of three pools.

One is for change-offs during regular service, and these are truly “spare” buses. One is for buses that are having light maintenance or inspections done at the garage. One is for buses that are at the main shop for major work. Stirred into this is warranty work, some of which can be done locally, and some of which is central. In the old days of simpler buses (the GMC New Looks of the 50s and 60s), a spare factor of 15% was considered high, but with greater complexity comes more things to break, and 15-20% is no longer unheard of especially with the hybrid fleet being an ongoing problem.

I’m sure that they have the data, but the TTC does not publish a breakdown of spare requirements by type of bus.

The short answer is that there are two ways to get more buses. One is to buy more, and that is certainly needed, but has a lead time of 18-24 months including project approval at the TTC and City, followed by manufacture. The other is to keep old buses in service longer, or at least until new ones to replace them can arrive. I will write about this in Part 2.

This week we’ve seen a couple of articles from Chow-friendly journalists looking at her possible mayoral run. Hepburn’s article in the Star doesn’t mention the word “transit”, and Barber’s blog post at Torontoist says Chow should ignore issues like the DRL (key quote: “there are more than just choo-choos on the agenda”). The timing suggests these stories were planted by Chow’s team, and signals that they’re not interested in transit.

Steve: We will have to wait for the platform announcement. Transit is one of the most important issues in the city and it consistently polls high. No candidate can afford to ignore it. As for the DRL, like the Scarborough Subway, there is more to “transit” than a few subway lines that won’t even open for at least a decade.

The new streetcars and articulated buses are effectively a cut in services as well, are they not? From what I’ve gathered, they’ll be running fewer streetcars and buses on those routes. So the actual capacity is going to remain the same, and the only “benefit” riders are really getting is the privilege of waiting longer at their stops.

Steve: On the Artic bus routes, the peak service is replaced on a 1:1 capacity basis and so, yes, buses will run less frequently. The off-peak cuts on Bathurst are not as severe.

On the streetcar routes, the proposed levels of service, to the degree one can trust info from the TTC because they are inconsistent on this, are generally an increase in capacity to make up for two decades when there were no spare cars. I don’t think they have been generous enough on some routes, but TTC proposes to order 60 more new cars for delivery late this decade. This project is not yet funded.

Yet Rob Ford and his underlings at the beginning of his administration desired a 10% reduction in funding. Ignore the increase in population. Ignore the increase in ridership. Ignore the crowding. Ignore inflation.

The TTC ought to implement my idea of improving bus service on Avenue/Yonge/Mt Pleasant to relieve the Yonge line a bit. It won’t be all that effective but there are enough people living in apartment buildings near Yonge/Eglinton that can’t get on the trains in the morning that might benefit from this.

In the mean time taking the St. Clair streetcar west and then the subway south at St. Clair West seems to work well. Half the subway trains short turn there so it is often possible to get a seat in morning rush hour, though it tends to get overcrowded at St. George, and the eastern part of the St. Clair streetcar is underused.

Also, running GO trains at least 15 minutes on Lakeshore and at least part of Georgetown both peak and off peak would help significantly. If we are lucky, the DRL will open 15 or 20 years from now, so something has to be done that can be implemented quickly.

Steve: Your idea? The TTC had planned to convert the express buses on Mt. Pleasant and Avenue Road to regular fare services to offload the subway, but dropped the idea due to budget pressures. As for GO service, there is a big issue with fare integration. Metrolinx has to address the question of capacity and competitive cost for shorter trips — right now, their fare structure is biased in favour of long trips.

One thing the TTC should have done long ago is move to all-door boarding, at least on busy or downtown routes. When I once raised the possibility at a public meeting, the only excuse I got was “fare evasion.” Unconvincing that, when many riders already have a metropass or make a connection past another fare barrier. I reckon the time saved and better service from all-door boarding might make it a “free” increase in capacity. With Presto imminent, now is a good time to start getting people used to it, and to see what effects it has on dwell time, passenger circulation, stop infrastructure, etc.

I took a few business classes and one thing they said is that a business or organization should not do across the board cuts like the city did. The reason is some departments make money for the overall organization or save money.

For example if Apple wanted to cut costs and so cut it’s research budget, a few years later it might find its sales dropping as its products are behind the times (I think it actually happened to them in the early 90s).

For a city, if it cuts transit spending by 10% like other departments, even though it makes good optics & politics, wouldn’t it increase costs? For example, they cut transit service and more people say “TTC=Take The Car” and with more cars on the road there are more demands on the road way infrastructure and higher costs. Certainly clogged roads make businesses think about moving to other municipalities thus reducing the tax base.

Unfortunately some of the things required to really improve service require substantial cooperation from other departments. However, implementing full light priority on the routes where it is installed would help transit service quite a lot, and help improve effective capacity.

As you have noted on many occassions, however, an implementation of a headway management system could help quite a lot, especially in combination with a light priority system. I am not well enough informed to know who has done&where this has been implemented, however, I believe that we likely do not need to really innovate here. Given that the TTC already has GPS on transit vehicles, and some light control, an upgrade of these systems using existing technology should be doable relatively quickly and at a reasonable cost. These would be low visibility projects, that would likely not require massive budgets, but would make an incremental improvement in service levels, and better use of available capacity, thereby provide effective capacity.

Three buses or Streetcars in close formation means that 1/2 of the capacity on these is wasted. If this condition persists 10% of the time means we could get an effective 5% improvement in capacity on those routes with no increase in fleet.

Reducing travel times by say 10% would also allow these vehicles to return start of line would be and increase by capacity 10%. Now a 10% improvement in travel time might require some substantial improvement in light control, but I have to believe that implementing this on key routes would be less expensive and just as quick as growing the fleet, however, it would also require massive interdepartmental cooperation, and some expenditures on things that might not be perceived to be transit related. It would also mean having to evaluate city traffic department on transit times for TTC vehicles as a key part their metrics.

Both of these sound easy, but would require both adopting some new technology, and a level of coordination that has been hard to achieve.

Steve: A 10% improvement in travel time is harder to achieve than it sounds. Delays at traffic signals are not the only thing that slows transit vehicles, and the worst effects are often concentrated on certain locations and directions, not over the entire route. All door low-floor loading will help, but this might be offset if service is only replaced on a 1:1 capacity basis with larger vehicles because the amount of door space available for loading would stay the same or even get worse.

Spacing out platoons by traffic signal sounds nice in theory, but it requires some intelligence, not just rote “one vehicle per cycle” logic. In some cases, the “platoon” is a legitimate one thanks to multiple routes sharing the same section of route, not to mention carhouse trips, short turns and diversions.

I’ve been getting re-interested in the Waterfront Transport Fun again with the less-wise proposals to rebuild the Gardiner. They are going to cost a HUGE sum; benefit a small group of folks, often from out-of-TOwn, and there is no user pay, unlike both transit systems nearby, of which GO has clearly done amazing lifting over the decades in giving access without cars.

As with the Front St. Extension, there is appallingly NO consideration of extra transit, eg. a Front St. transitway, or indeed what seems to be an early 1983 version of the DRL that used Front St. And in looking over a Crombie/Waterfront document it is sad to see all those Railway lands completely empty c. 3 decades ago and knowing that there has been zilch response really from the city.

Yes, there’s the WWLRT and Harbourfront stuff, but it is clearly stated in the 1993 WWLRT EA that a direct route in is needed for really making a difference in the mode share/commute – but all we tend to hear about is the Harbourfront line and WWLRT vs. a direct/robust line – which is really needed.

Most everyone elected and in paid positions seems to be very comfortable with not looking at this issue including tolls on the Gardiner and looking the other way, and it is something that given the timelines and getting knocked up with fixing something that maybe should be knocked down, (or at least altered/converted to transit/tolled), we should be trying to fuss more strongly about it as the future is now, and the gifts to the motorists shouldn’t be countenanced.

“Spacing out platoons by traffic signal sounds nice in theory, but it requires some intelligence, not just rote “one vehicle per cycle” logic. In some cases, the “platoon” is a legitimate one thanks to multiple routes sharing the same section of route, not to mention carhouse trips, short turns and diversions.”

Sorry Steve I was thinking of these as, (headway and light control) as different projects. The combination being somewhat additive. Speed from light control and headway management being done with the help of a system that talks to the driver (red light green light in cab?). However, I suppose light management might be able to help gapping at the margin, I was thinking more in terms of locations where the driver could hold for a couple of extra seconds. Speed was from having the light being green based on vehicle position and status. I realize that was anything but clear from my post. Your point about other hold-ups is clear, and I have no illusions about being able to gain 10% on a lot of routes, only those where traffic lights are a particular problem. I was thinking this might hopefully include King and possibly Queen between Bathurst and the Don (although I have not ridden either in years). My thinking however, is that these routes are also the ones that have greatest need for incremental service improvement.

I do not think that this would be easily rolled out across a large area, even on a strictly technical basis, even if it were a given to all involved that transit needed and deserve the priority. I was not advocating a one per light system (had not actually thought of it).

Steve: My remarks came partly in response to comments I have heard from others, including traffic planners, who don’t fully appreciate the complexity of deciding whether a specific transit vehicle should be held or not. One point I didn’t even mention was the fact that traffic flows in two directions, not one, and while holding a westbound car might be useful, the eastbound operator might be desperately late.

“Also, running GO trains at least 15 minutes on Lakeshore and at least part of Georgetown both peak and off peak would help significantly. If we are lucky, the DRL will open 15 or 20 years from now, so something has to be done that can be implemented quickly.”

How would running GO trains every 15 minutes on Lakeshore improve anything? The current schedule is every 10 in the peak hour. Also neither Lakeshore or Georgetown, now called Kitchener, will not help alleviate the need for the DRL.

My remarks came partly in response to comments I have heard from others, including traffic planners, who don’t fully appreciate the complexity of deciding whether a specific transit vehicle should be held or not. One point I didn’t even mention was the fact that traffic flows in two directions, not one, and while holding a westbound car might be useful, the eastbound operator might be desperately late.

I have to admit, I have not thought much about the westbound operator and the lights helping him hold, however, the light priority would be aimed at the east bound operator, while the westbound operator pissed off the motorists taking his own sweet time clearing the intersection, because his headway signaller was flashing red at him. Your point is well taken in terms of the system, or in how I was seeing it the politics (Ford could have field day with Streetcar drivers deliberately holding up traffic.) To make it work politically car drivers would need to be able to bypass the holding transit vehicle, and/or his/her hold would need to be kept to scant seconds at each intersection. Of course holding the light for the eastbound car, not the west (assuming they did not arrive close to the same time) should help over a long time. It is certainly no panacea for headway. But well done (again, lots of planning) with an understanding of which way and in which sections at what time lights needed to be tweaked would be important.

Also to your point it would be hard to help east/west lines at the same time as north south. Even east vs west, you would need to make a choice which you were giving priority to in order to make it work. Not an easy task, and would require considerable data and feedback to make it work well if you were not going to hurt traffic. It would certainly be an investment in the many many millions, however if it did help service, it would help both service speed and reliability, as well as giving an incremental improvement in service levels (no illusions here, you are not getting massive increases in effective capacity), also on a long route, you may see no effective capacity increase as the round trip may be long enough that you see virtually no vehicles getting an extra trip. Only worth considering if one there is near off the shelf solution (no bleeding edge please) and had complete buy in from department responsible for roads and traffic management.

Steve: There is already an intersection with four-way transit priority: Broadview and Gerrard. However, an important point here is that the intersection and environs are rarely congested and there is green time and capacity spare for reallocation. Traffic engineers will tell you that the closer an intersection gets to complete gridlock, the less leeway there is to squeeze better performance out of it. The whole idea of “priority” needs some elbow room to work with — capacity that is better used by reallocation. If there is more traffic than capacity, life gets more difficult.

A related point is that far more damage to a 4-lane road’s capacity can be caused by one parked delivery truck than by the lack of transit priority at an intersection.

Robert Wightman said:

How would running GO trains every 15 minutes on Lakeshore improve anything? The current schedule is every 10 in the peak hour. Also neither Lakeshore or Georgetown, now called Kitchener, will not help alleviate the need for the DRL.

The increased schedule could be used to put more trains returning from the east at Main, which if there was a better transfer from Danforth could divert some traffic. Could be mistaken, but is strikes me that this might be plausible, if someone reworked the way the transfer worked, unfortunately it is a couple of hundred metres from Main Danforth to Danforth GO, however some people if they knew they would not be waiting, and it was all day reliable might consider riding the GO from this point to downtown especially if there was fare integration, because at least on GO you are sitting not standing or crushed. If you diverted 3 or 4 train equivalents an hour it would have an impact at Yonge/Bloor.

Steve: That transfer connection even with a passageway linking the stations would not be a quick one, especially if the headway of trains leaving Danforth Station westbound were around 15 minutes (e.g. 4 trains/hour). To get this number of local trains would require a more frequent service on the Lake Shore East overall, and I am not sure this is the best use of capacity on that route.

This scheme was proposed in another forum, the Neptis Report, in which trains terminating eastbound at Danforth were proposed. It does not make sense to have many riders, potentially a train-load’s worth, accumulating at Danforth Station for a comparatively infrequent service.

Despite Rob Ford and his underlings attempts to reduce TTC service 10%, the TTC still still considered #1 in Canada. It would have been #1 in North America, if the TTC had the same subsidy levels as San Fransisco and New York City. See walkscore.com for Canadian and USA information.

Steve: Ah yes, but how much higher would our score have been without the Ford/Stintz machinations on service, or the McGuinty/Ford demolition of Transit City?

That transfer connection even with a passageway linking the stations would not be a quick one, especially if the headway of trains leaving Danforth Station westbound were around 15 minutes (e.g. 4 trains/hour). To get this number of local trains would require a more frequent service on the Lake Shore East overall, and I am not sure this is the best use of capacity on that route.

This scheme was proposed in another forum, the Neptis Report, in which trains terminating eastbound at Danforth were proposed. It does not make sense to have many riders, potentially a train-load’s worth, accumulating at Danforth Station for a comparatively infrequent service.

I was doubtful of this proposal, amongst several. I personally think I have more doubts about the ability of GO to relieve sufficient traffic off Yonge for similar reasons. However, at least in that case it is not transferring off a subway to ride GO, which should help. I know for myself, I really do not like dealing with large headways. I would think that if you could by some miracle get it down to something on the order of 7-8 minutes it would likely be attractive. However if you used current train sizes you would need an incredible amount of traffic, or be running very empty trains.

Is it possible that the rollout of new vehicle-tracking apps (eg. wheresmystreetcar, nextbus, 898882, etc.) reduces the incentive for the TTC to improve service reliability? Is this what’s happening?

Steve: It’s a double edged sword. Vehicle tracking at least lets me decide whether it’s even worth waiting for something to show up, but it also reveals just how bad service actually is. TTC management fought against letting the public see maps of vehicle locations claiming that somehow this would be a security problem. The only “security” concern is for their own jobs and their decades of excuses for unreliable service.

Another point is that any claim that things are better than “last year” can be easily checked by looking at the historical data as I have done here on several occasions.

How would running GO trains every 15 minutes on Lakeshore improve anything? The current schedule is every 10 in the peak hour. Also neither Lakeshore or Georgetown, now called Kitchener, will not help alleviate the need for the DRL.

Malcolm N says:

The increased schedule could be used to put more trains returning from the east at Main, which if there was a better transfer from Danforth could divert some traffic. Could be mistaken, but is strikes me that this might be plausible, if someone reworked the way the transfer worked, unfortunately it is a couple of hundred metres from Main Danforth to Danforth GO, however some people if they knew they would not be waiting, and it was all day reliable might consider riding the GO from this point to downtown especially if there was fare integration, because at least on GO you are sitting not standing or crushed. If you diverted 3 or 4 train equivalents an hour it would have an impact at Yonge/Bloor.

I repeat “What increased Schedule?” A train every 15 minutes is worse that what runs now and there is no room for more trains on the line or in Union Station with the antiquated operating rules and the small platforms. It takes close to 10 minutes to turn a GO train.

If I remember this correctly, the engineer has to walk to the other end of the train, set up the control stand, apply and release the brakes while the conductor verifies that they are working at the now rear end of the train. Then he has to walk to the front of the train. Twelve car trains are over just under 1100 feet long. I know CN crews used to do this a lot faster but they bent the rules a wee bit by having 2 engineer qualified personnel, one in either cab, so they could turn faster. Most Conductors are also being qualified as engineers but they now want both in the cab at all times.

Danforth and Main is too far east to divert a lot of the people that a DRL would. I know that all those nice green GO lines look very attractive and if a subway train that hold 1000 people can move 30,000 per hour then a GO train that holds 2000 people should be able to move nearly that. Problem is you are assuming that there is a set of rational rules that GO follows and they are not rational on a line that runs almost entirely or entirely passenger trains. The line has to be ready to accommodate a 10,000 foot long train of Bakken crude oil to Stouffville at any time; they might open a refinery there. Trying to apply logic to FRA TC rules is like trying to find logic in air fares.

Scarborough Deserves Better Transit Service Now. The transit service in Toronto (outside of Scarborough) is pretty good already and needs not any further waste of money.

Is this the same aggrieved poster that comes by to complain about the billions wasted on numbering the subway lines?

Funny how he or she thinks everyone in Toronto has great transit service except for poor old Scarborough which is getting screwed by the Torontonian Federation.

My advice is to stop voting for politicians whose number one and only priority is either tax cuts and service cuts.

If anyone should be hopping mad it’s the rest of Toronto outside of Scarborough who have been held hostage by demagogue politicians who would think nothing of wasting billions on mega-projects with demonstrably marginal gains.

All candidates must come to the table with a plan that calls for increased operations and return to the priorities of the Ridership Growth Strategy before it becomes the “LRT” and “Bus” plans. Toronto needs one comprehensive rapid transit plan that makes room for subways, LRT and Buses (frequent service and Rocket buses, with BRT on some corridors).

Any political candidate who focuses on infrastructure without operations … and without a plan for having the necessary revenues from realistic sources (and that includes the premier who today announced the she can pay for transit without raising taxes) needs to be called out for their failure to understand transit or its financing.

Oct. 11, 2018: The article requesting comments on charts to display headway reliability has been updated again with a new set of charts showing the distribution of headways by time of day and location in “box and whisker” format.